THESIS FOR MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

ALETHEIA UNIVERSITY

Jan, 2009

AdvisorRui-Yang Chen Ph. D.

THE INTEGRATION OF CROSS-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT

INTERFACE: A CASE STUDY OF CAR ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT

Graduate Student: Jia-Hau Ke

-

90

ECU

KT

AHPAnalytic Hierarchy Process

KT AHP

Title of ThesisThe Integration of Cross-Industrial Product Interface: A Case Study of Car Electronic Control Unit

Key wordsKT method, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Product interface, Car Electronic

Name of InstituteGraduate School of Management Sciences, Aletheia University

Graduate DateJan, 2009 Degree ConferredMaster Degree

Name of StudentJia-Hau Ke AdvisorRui-Yang Chen Ph. D.

Abstract

In opposition to the micro profit situation of electronic information industry intense competition, the car electronic industry combined the advantage of electronic information with car product components to make it more intelligent in information function. Furthermore, the combination extend a new business of application field in the electronic information industry. In the cross-industry product integration process, the problems of individual product components interface may influence the quality and usefulness of the whole electronic components product. Besides, in the process of interface integration, it may occur the conflicts between the two diffirent industrial products and increase the difficulties of integration. The integration connected to the safety and application of car electronic products. The key point of cross-industry integration is how to avoid conflicts and make product interface integration effectively.

This study takes the car electronic control unit for example. The main purpose of this study is to discuss the probable problems of cross-industry product interface integration. We use the KT method to do the substantial evidence analysis for cross-industry product interface integration problems. Furthermore, we combined the results of Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) and experts questionnaire to construct the solution oriented of cross-industry product interface integration problems.

I

IV

V

1

........................................................................................ 1

........................................................................................ 4

........................................................................................ 5

........................................................................................ 7

........................................................................................ 8

10

KT............................................................................................. 10

.............................................................................. 11

.............................................................................. 13

.............................................................................. 15

...................................................................................... 16

.............................................................................. 19

.................................................................................. 21

AHP ......................................................................... 22

I

29

...................................................................................... 29

KT ........................................... 31

AHP .................................. 45

.............................................................................. 48

50

.............................................................................. 50

.............................................................................. 52

.............................................................................. 54

Fuzzy KT ..................................................... 58

AHP ..................................................................... 67

75

.............................................................................................. 75

...................................................................................... 77

.......................................................... 77

79

...................................................................................................... 79

...................................................................................................... 80

II

III

...................................................................................................... 82

84

1-1 9

2-1 KT 11

2-2 12

2-3 15

2-4 AHP 28

3-1 30

3-2 32

3-3 KT 37

3-4 38

3-5 39

3-6 40

3-7 AHP 47

4-1 Expert Choice 2000 AHP () 73

IV

2-1 AHP 25

2-2 27

3-1 36

3-2 KT 37

3-3 42

3-4 44

3-5 44

4-1 A 51

4-2 ECU 54

4-3 58

4-4 KT159

4-5 161

4-6 262

4-7 KT263

4-8 65

4-9 KT365

4-10 66

4-11 AHP 67

V

4-12 68

4-13 69

4-14 69

4-15 70

4-16 AHP 72

VI

1

70%

2005

2

Mercedes

-Benz Carl

2005

2004

3

2005

2005

ComputerCommunication

Consumption 3C C Car

Electronic

( 2006 )

4

2005

Strategy Analysis 2004

358 2013 608 2004 2013

GAGR 7.3 3.8

25 40

2007

IT

2007

5

6

2004

KT

7

KT AHP

8

1-1

KT

AHP

9

1-1

KT

AHP

10

KT

KT KT Charles H. Kepner

Benjamin B. Tregoe 1950 RAND

KT Spitzer and Evans1999

KTC.H.KEPNERB TREGOR

2-1

1Situation Analysis-S.A

2Problem Analysis-P.A

3Potential Problem Analysis P.P.A

11

4Decision Analysis-D.A

2-1 KT

12

1

2006

2-2

(2006) (2006)

/

a. /

b. /

a. ( )

(

)

b.

/

a. /

b. /

13

2004 87.22% 2005

2006

37 49 1948-1960

50 59 1961-1970

60 69 1971-1980

14

70 79 1981-1990

IC 80 1991

89 2000

e

2001

IC

2005 9,879 2005

IC 1 1,131 2006 1 2,259

IC IC

TFT-LCD

CDT LCD

2006

15

2-3 %

IEK/

.../

ABS ...

......

IC CPU

MCU

/IC

OEAfter Market

1980

16

2006

NISSAN

IC

IC

IC IC

Handerson & Clark, 1990

17

Stone 2000

Dhebar, 1995Sengupta, 1998:

Muffatto1999

2004

18

Narver & Slater, 1990Kohli and

Jaworski1990

Customer FocusDay1994

Gatignon & Xuereb

1997

19

Song, 1997, 2000Souder, 1997Sethi

DanielPark, 2001

Gatignon & Xuereb,

1997Application Enginning

Zadeh 1965

Crisp Set

20

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1 Membership Function

Wang & Mendel, 1992

U U x

( )UAA 0 1 x A

A ( )xA ( ) 10 xA ( )xA

1 A

21

Technology ParadigmDosi, 1982

Teece, 1996Teece, 1997

Tushman1986

Competence EnhancingCompetence-Destroyimg

1997Fleming & Koppeman1997

Dougherty1990

22

Fleming & Koppeman, 1997

1997Allen & Hamilton1982Kuczmarski

19921

234

AHP

AHP

AHP MultiobjectiveMulticriteria

T.L.Saaty, 1977

23

AHP

2005

AHP

AHP

Ratio ScalesNorminal Scales

2-4 AHP

5W1HWhatWhyWhereWho

WhenHow

24

Brainstorming

Delphi method KJ

Criteria

Sub-criteria

AHP

1989

1.

2.

3. Saaty

4.

5.

n nn-1/2

25

AHP

1 9

Saaty1990 2-1 AHP

2-1 AHP

1 ( Equal Importance )

3

( Moderate Importance )

5

( Essential Importance )

7

( Very Strong Importance )

9 ( Extreme Importance )

2,4,6,8

( Intermediate Values )

Saaty, 1990

Eigen value

Eigen vectorPriority vector

26

NGM Normalization of the Geometric

Mean of the Rows

= ==

=

=

n

i

nn

jij

nn

jiji n1,2.....,ji, AAW

1

1

1

1

1

++

=

=

=

n

nmax

n

2

1

n

2

1

n

n

nn

WW

WW

n

W

WW

W

WW

AA

....A

A

A

A

L

MMM

L

K

MM

1

1

2

1

2

12

1

12

111

1

1

11

AHP C.R.

Consistency Index , C.I.Consistency Ratio , C.R.

Saaty C.R. 0.1

1=

nn.I.C max

C.I.

27

Random Index , R.I.

1989 N R.I. 2-2 1

11 R.I. 500 12 15 R.I.

100 Saaty, 1990

2-2

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

R.I 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

( Satty, 1990 )

C.I. R.I.C.R.

C.R. = C.I. / R.I. C.R. 0.1

C.I.HC.R.H

C.I.HR.I.H

( ) ( ) .I.CH.I.C =

( ) ( ) .I.RH.R.C = H.I.R/H.I.CH.R.C =

10.H.R.C

28

2-4 AHP

1989

C.R.0.1

29

KT AHP

3-1

Fuzzy KT

AHP

30

3-1

Fuzzy KT

Fuzzy set

KT

AHP

KT

31

KT

KT

3-2

Fuzzy KT 1Situation Analysis-S.A

2Problem Analysis-P.A

3Potential Problem Analysis P.P.A

4Decision

Analysis-D.A

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

3-2

32

3-2

33

34

35

Fuzzy KT

3-3

3-1 3-2

36

Fuzzy

KT

3-4

1

X ( )x

3-1

Fuzzy sets

37

3-3 KT

3-2 KT

Yes No

1

Yes

38

3-2 KT

2

Yes

3

Yes

3-4

( )( )( )( )

39

3-5

Should

Actual

3-6

3-5

Actual

40

3-6

Should

Actual

41

3-3

42

3-3

WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? HOW

MUCH?

1~5

1~5

1

43

State the action

3-4

44

3-4

Fuzzy sets

()

AHP

3-5

3-5

= = =

45

AHP

KT

46

KT

AHP

Fuzzy KT

AHP 3-7

47

3-7 AHP

19

48

NGMNormalization of the Geometric

Mean of the Rows

AHP

1.

2.

AHP

1 9

n nn-1/2

49

Content ValidityPredictive Validity

Construct Validity

AHP

50

KT

AHP

ITA

A19731.5267

A

A

A

20022007

2005

4-1A

51

4-1 A

06 06 IS 06 06 UNIX 06 Windows 06 06

06 06 /06 06 06 06

06 06

06

06 06

A

LIN/CANFlexRayIDB-1394

1985

LANLANLAN

A

IDB-1394LINCAN Flexray

A

A

A

52

100

Electronic Control Unit,

ECU

Electronic Fuel Injection, EFI

ECU

ECU

53

ECU ECU

ECU

ECU

ECU

ECU

ECU

ECU

MPU

4-2

54

4-2 ECU

ECU

ECU

ECUMAP-EGRECU

ECUEST-

ECU

MPU MPU

ECUECU

OBD

ECU-MPU

2005/10

ECU ECU

1V

55

1

0.1V 0.3V

ECU

ECU

ECU

56

ECU

ECU

ECU

ECU

EMI

10 4.5

EMI

EMI

EMI

EMI EMI

ECU EMI

57

ECU

EMI

ECU

ECU

ECU

58

Fuzzy KT

Fuzzy KT

4-3

ECU

ECU

4-3

EMI

Fuzzy sets

1. 1000

2. 6km/l

59

4-3

1.

2.

1.

2.

4-4

YES

4-4 KT1

1000/6km/l

Yes No

1

Yes

60

4-4 KT1

2

Yes

3

Yes

4-5 4-6

ECU

61

4-5 1

WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? HOW MUCH?

(1~5)

700~800

1000

10km/h

15km/h

ECU

1~10

1

1.

2. ECU

6 3 9 4 10 4 5 8 10 5 8 5

62

4-6 2

WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? HOW MUCH?

(1~5)

7~10km/l

6km/l

4~5

1~10

2

1.

2. ECU

6 3 9 4 10 4 5 8 10 5 8 5

63

ECUECU

ECU

KT

4-7

4-7 KT2

1000/6km/l

Yes No

1

Yes

64

4-7 KT2

2

Yes

3

Yes

A10nF

EMI

LAN

FMEMI

30dBA

EMIEMI

EMIEMI

EMI4-8

65

4-8

=0.211 =0.246 =0.543

3 1 3 2.508

3 5 3 3.492

3 3 1 1.914

5 3 3 3.422

4-9

4-9 KT3

1000/6km/l

Yes No

1

Yes

66

4-9 KT3

2

Yes

3

Yes

ECU

4-10

(Fuzzy sets)

()

67

AHP

AHP

AHP Expert Choice 2000

www.my3q.com 20 6

14 20 3

17 4-11

4-11 AHP

20 14 6

20 17 3 31

4-12 77.4%

25~34 45.2%

38.7% 32.3%

/ 71.0%

http://www.my3q.com/

68

4-12

%

1.

2.

24

7

77.4

22.6

1. 20~24

2. 25~34

3. 35~44

4. 45

4

14

8

5

12.9

45.2

25.8

16.1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3

10

12

2

4

9.7

32.3

38.7

6.5

12.8

1. ()

2. /

3.

4

22

5

12.9

71.0

16.1

AHP

C.I.C.R. max

Expert Choice 2000 AHP

00.0.. =IC 00.0

00.000.0

R.I.C.I... ===RC

4-13

69

4-13

1 2.24294 0.692 0.692

0.44584 1 0.308 0.308

=max 2.00C.I.=0.00C.R.=0.00

:

692.0692.01 =

083.0083.01 =

C.R.=0.00C.I.=0.00 0.1 Saaty

C.I.C.R. max

Expert Choice 2000 AHP 80.0.. =IC

890.090.0

80.0R.I.C.I... ===RC

4.24max = n 4-14

4-14

=max 4.24C.I.=0.08C.R.=0.089

1 3.81916 6.07159 2.14175 0.182 0.126 2

0.26183 1 6.33682 2.55696 0.061 0.042 4

0.16470 0.15781 1 4.90923 0.642 0.444 1

0.44691 0.39109 0.20369 1 0.116 0.080 3

70

:

0.1260.182692.0 =

042.0061.0692.0 =

444.0642.0692.0 =

080.0116.0692.0 =

C.I.C.R. max

Expert Choice 2000 AHP 70.0.. =IC

780.090.070.0

R.I.C.I... ===RC

4.21max = n 4-15

4-15

=max 4.21C.I.=0.07C.R.=0.078

:

0.0170.0.054308.0 =

0.0370.120308.0 =

0.0810.263308.0 =

1 3.51943 5.10233 6.58694 0.054 0.017 4

0.28414 1 3.18147 5.15938 0.120 0.037 3

0.19599 0.31432 1 3.13030 0.263 0.081 2

0.15182 0.19382 0.31946 1 0.564 0.174 1

71

0.1740.564308.0 =

4-144-15

C.R. 0.0890.078

0.1 Saaty

C.I.C.R. max 4-16

4-16

0.6920.308

4-16

(0.444)0.1740.126

0.0810.080.0420.037

0.017

72

4-16 AHP

0.182 0.126 2 3

0.061 0.042 4 6

0.642 0.444 1 1

=max 4.24 C.I.=0.08 C.R.=0.089 =0.692

0.116 0.080 3 5

0.054 0.017 4 8

0.120 0.037 3 7

0.263 0.081 2 4

=max 4.21 C.I.=0.07 C.R.=0.078 =0.308

0.564 0.174 1 2

Expert Choice 2000 AHP

4-1

0.543

0.2460.211

73

4-1 Expert Choice 2000 AHP

0.4440.174:

1.

IBM

74

2.

OEM ODM

75

76

ECU

KT

AHP

ECUKT

AHP

77

KT

KT

78

KT

KT

79

1. 1997

75-121

2. 1997 IC

3. 2004-

4. 2006 5 486

5. 2006

6. 2005 134

3

7. 2005-

8. 2004-

80

9. 1989AHP

27p5-22

10. 1989AHP

27p1-20

11. 2004-

12. 2006Telematics

67

13. 2005

-

14. Kepner & Tregoe 1986The New Rational Manager

15. Kepner & Tregoe 2004The New Rational Manager

KT

16. Quinn Spitzer & Ron Evans1999HeadsYou Win

1. Booz, E., Allen, J and Hamilton, C., 1982. New Products Management for the 1980s, New York: Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., pp.17.

81

2. Coles, S. and Rowley, J., 1995. Revisiting Decision Trees, Management Decision, 33, 8, pp.46-50.

3. Dhebar, Anirudh, 1995. Complementarity, Compatibility, and Product Change: Breaking with the Past?, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, pp.136-152.

4. Dosi, G., 1982. Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories, Research Policy, 11, 3, pp.147-162.

5. Dougherty, D., 1990. Understanding New Markets for New Products, Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp.59-78.

6. Fleming, Q. W. and Koppleman, J. M., 1997. Integrated Project Development Teams: another fad ... or a permanent change?, Project Management Journal, 28, 1, pp.4-11.

7. Gatignon, Xubert and Jean-Marc Xuereb, 1997. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New product Performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, pp.77-90.

8. Henderson, R. and Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and The Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:9-30.

9. Hillier, F. S., and Lieberman, G. J., 1995. Introduction to Operations Research, NY :McGraw-Hill, New York.

10. Kohli, A. K. and Jaworski, B. J., 1990. Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54, 2, pp. 1-18.

11. Kuczmarski, T. D., 1992. Management New Product: The Power of Innovation, New York: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp.61.

12. L.-X. Wang and J. M. Mendel, 1992. Generatiing Fuzzy Rules by Learning Form Examples, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybern., 22, 6, Nov./Dec., pp. 1414-1427.

13. L. A. Zadeh, 1965. Fuzzy set, Information and control, 8, pp.338-353. 14. Muffatto, Moreno, 1999. Introducing a Platform Strategy in Product

Development, International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, pp.145-153.

15. Narver, J. C. and Slater, S. F., 1990. The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability, Journal of Marketing, 54, 4, pp.20-35.

16. Saaty, T.L., 1990. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, 2nd Ed.,RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.

17. Sengupta, S., 1998. Some Approach to Complementary Product Strategy, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, pp.352-367.

82

18. Sethi, Rajesh, Daniel C. Smith and C Whan Park, 2001. Cross-Functional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products, Journal of Marketing Research. Chicago, 38(1), pp.73-87.

19. Song, X. Michael, Neeley, Sabrina M, and Yuzhen Zhao, 1996. Managing R&D-Marketing Integration in the New Product Development Process, Industrial Marketing Management, New York: November, 25, 6, pp.545-554.

20. Song, X. Michael and Mark E. Parry, 1997. A Cross-National Comparative Study of New Product Development Processes: Japan and the United States, Journal of Marketing, 61, 2, pp.1-18.

21. Souder, William E., and Michael X. Song, 1997. Contingent Product Design and Marketing Strategies Influencing New Product Success and Failure in U.S. and Japanese Electronics Firms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 1, pp.21-34.

22. Stone, R. B., K. L. Wood and R. H. Crawford, 2000. Using Quantitative Functional Models to Develop Product Architecture, Design Study, 21, pp.239-260.

23. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Amy, S., 1997. Dynamic Capability and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7, pp.509-533.

24. Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P., 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (3), PP.439-465.

1. 2006

http://www.itis.org.tw/rptDetail.screen?rptidno=A7CDBC1D3C2469464825715300376FF7

2.

http://www.teema.org.tw/introduce/default.asp

3.

http://www.ttvma.org.tw/cht/index.php

4. 2006

http://twbusiness.nat.gov.tw/asp/superior8.asp

http://www.itis.org.tw/rptDetail.screen?rptidno=A7CDBC1D3C2469464825715300376FF7http://www.itis.org.tw/rptDetail.screen?rptidno=A7CDBC1D3C2469464825715300376FF7http://www.teema.org.tw/introduce/default.asphttp://twbusiness.nat.gov.tw/asp/superior8.asp

83

5. 2007

http://www.digitimes.com.tw/

6. 2007

http://www.itis.org.tw/index.jsp

http://www.digitimes.com.tw/http://www.itis.org.tw/index.jsp

84

1. 2. 3.

E-mail Address

================================================================== 1. ()A

B1~B3C1~C9// 2. AHP

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

B A C

1. A 2. B 3. C

85

86

() 1. 2.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1. 2. 3. 4.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1. 2..3 4.

87

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1. 2. 3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.2.3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.

88

2.3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.

2.3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.2.

3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

89

() 1.2.3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.2.

3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

() 1.2.

3.

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

90

1.

2. 20~29 30~39 40~49 50~59 60

3.

_______

4.

_______

5. /

/ID /

_______

6. / /

/ /

_______

E-mail Address

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

--------

Jia-Hau Ke

70.10.25

95 9 ~98 1

89 9 ~94 6

E-mailjack_0213@hotmail.com

:

2007/6/8

2007/6/8 AHP Fuzzy QFD 2352007

Graduate Student: Jia-Hau Ke